[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <661de9470804290752w1dc0cfb3k72e81d828a45765e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:22:58 +0530
From: "Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: "Ross Biro" <rossb@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kamalesh Babulal" <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Page Faults slower in 2.6.25-rc9 than 2.6.23
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ross Biro wrote:
> > I don't know if this has been noticed before. I was benchmarking my
> > page table relocation code and I noticed that on 2.6.25-rc9 page
> > faults take 10% more time than on 2.6.22. This is using lmbench
> > running on an intel x86_64 system. The good news is that the page
> > table relocation code now only adds a 1.6% slow down to page faults.
>
> Do you have CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR=y in 2.6.25?
> That added about 20% to my lmbench "Page Fault" tests (with
> adverse effect on several others e.g. the fork, exec, sh group).
>
Hmm.. strange.. I don't remember the overhead being so bad (I'll
relook at my old numbers). I'll try and git-bisect this one
> Try the same kernel with boot option "cgroup_disable=memory",
> that should recoup most (but not quite all) of the slowdown;
> or rebuild with n to CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR.
>
> But your "Mmap Latency" went up 425% ??
>
That's really way of the mark
> Hugh
>
Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists